|
|
West v. Krebaum
Totally free Guides / Real Estate / The Law Of Genuine House /
Sec. 460. Acknowledgment
In some states the statute calls for a conveyance for being acknowledged by the grantor prior to an official in order to allow it to be efficient even as between the events,three and within a amount of states an acknowledgment is important to the validity of the conveyance by a married lady. More usually, nonetheless, the requirement of acknowledgment is imposed only as a preliminary for the record of the conveyance, for that goal of charging a subsequent purchaser with observe thereof,four with all the outcome that the record of the ness, it's got been decided, may possibly be by mark. Brown v. Mccormick, 28 Mich. 215; Devereux v. Mc-mahon, 102 N. C. 284, nine S. E. 635.
1-2. So it's got been held that one getting a pecuniary curiosity within the conveyance is disqualified. Winsted Sav. Lender & Building Ass'n v. Spencer, 26 Conn. 195; Child v. Baker, 24 Neb. 1'88. And a grantor cannot witness the execution of the instrument by his co-grantor. Townsend v. Downer, 27 Vt. 119.
A wife or husband of the grantor has also been regarded as disqualified. Third Nat. Lender of Chattanooga v. O'brien, 94 Tenn. 38, 28 S. W. 293; Johnston v. Slater, 11 Grat. (Va.) 321; Cor-bett v. Norcross, 35 N. H. 99. But in some cases it has been held the witness need not be competent to testify at the time of its execution, provided he can testify when called to prove the execution in court. Frink v. Pond, 46 N. H. 125; Doe d. Johnson v. Turner, 7 Ohio, 216, pt. 2.
3. See Lewis v. Herrera, 10 Ariz. 74, 85 Pac. 245; Parrott v. Kumpf, 102 111. 423; Hout v. Hout,
Trustee in,nine or a beneficiary under,10 a deed of trust take the acknowledgment of the grantor therein. Whether one grantor can take the acknowledgment of his cograntor appears for being uncertain.11 From the weight of authority an officer is disqualified to take an acknowledgment in which a corporation is beneficially interested if he is a stockholder therein,12 but not if
20 Ohio St. 119.
4. one Stimson's Am. Stat. Law, Sec. 1570.
5. See e g.; Green v. Abraham, 43 Ark. 420; Lee v. Murphy, 119 Cal. 364, 51 Pac. 549; Edwards v. Thorn, 25 Fla. 222, 5 So. 707; New England Mortgage Security Co. v. Ober, 84 Ga. 294,key-windows-7.eu/:key-windows-7.eu/]Windows 7 Home Premium, 10 S. E. 625; Harris v. Reed,
21 Idaho, 364, 121 Pac. 780; Graves v. Graves, 6 Gray (Mass.) 391; Thompson v. Scheid, 39 Minn. 102, 12 Am. St. Rep. 619, 38 N. W. 801; Ligon v. Barton.
- Qualifications of officer. The statute ordinarily needs the acknowledgment for being made, if within the state, prior to a judge, clerk of court, justice of the peace, or notary public. The provisions of the statutes as to acknowledgment in another state sometimes provide that it may possibly be taken by named classes of officials of the latter state, sometimes by commissioners of deeds appointed for such state, and sometimes by any officials of the other state authorized by the statutes of such state to take acknowledgments. The statutes also contain, almost invariably, specific provisions as to your officials who might take acknowledgments in foreign countries for use from the state in which the statute is passed.
It is generally agreed that an officer who is beneficially interested inside the transaction cannot take an acknowledgment.7 Consequently the grantee cannot take the grantor's acknowledgment,8 nor can either the
88 Miss. 135, 40 So. 555; Finley v. Babb, 173 Mo. 257, 73 S. W. 180; Brown v. Manter, 22 N. H. 468; Bradley v. Walker, 138 N. Y. 291, 33 N. E. 1079; Geneseo First Nat. Lender v. National Live Stock Bank, 13 Okla. 719, 76 Pac. 130; Watts v. Whetstone, 79 S. C. 357, 60 S. E. 703.
6. 1 Stimson's Am. St. Law, Sec. 1572; four Wigmore, Evidence, Sec. 1676.
7. But in Tennessee, apparent ly, interest does not disqualify a single to take an acknowledgment. Cooper v. Hamilton Perpetual Bldg. etc. Ass'n, 97 Tenn, 285, 33 L. R. A. 338, 56 Am. St. Rep. 795, 37 S. W. 12.
There is authority for your view that interest does not disqualify if there is no other officer who can take the acknowledgment. Stevenson v. Brasher, 90 Ky. 23, 13 S. W. 242; Lewis v. Curry, 74 Mo. 49. Contra, semble, Hammers v. Dole, 61 111. 307.
8. Lee v. Murphy, 119 Cal. 364, 51 Pac. 549; Brereton v. Bennett, 15 Colo. 254; Hogans v. Carruth, 18 Fla. 587; Florila Savings Lender & Real Estate Exchange v. Rivers, 36 Fla. 575, 18 So. 850; Hammers v. Dole,key-office-2010.us/windows-7-key:key-office-2010.us/windows-7-key]Windows 7 Professional Product Key, 61 111. 307; West v. Krebaum, 88 111. 263; Wilson v. Traer, 20 Iowa, 231; Greenlee v. Smith, four Kan. App. 733, 46 Pac. 543.
Beaman v. Whitney, 20 Me. 413; Laprad v. Sherwood, 79 Mich. 520, 44 N. W. 943; Wesson v. Connor, 54 Miss. 351; Hainey v. Alberry, 73 Mo. 427; Amick v. Woodworth, 58 Ohio St. 86, 50 N. E. 437; Hunton v. Wood, 100 Va. 54, 43 S. E. 186.
But in Murray v. Tulare Irrigation Co., 120 Cal. 311, 49 Pac. 463, 52 Pac. 586, it was held that an acknowledgment taken by one of several grantees, each of whom took "a separate and denned interest" was good as to all the grantees except that one. And in Darst v. Gale, 83 111. 136,microsoftoffice2007key.org/:microsoftoffice2007key.org/]Microsoft Office 2007 Product Key, a substantially similar view was taken as to an acknowledgment prior to one particular of several trustees to whom a mortgage was made.
9. Muense v. Harper, 70 Ark. 309, 67 S. W. 869; Darst v. Dale, 83 111. 136; Holden v. Brimage, 72 Miss. 228, 18 So. 383; German American Financial institution v. Carondelet Real Estate Co., 150 Mo. 570, 51 S. W. 691; Lance v. Tainter, 137 N. C. 249,key-office-2010.eu/office-2007-key:key-office-2010.eu/office-2007-key]Office 2007 Professional Key, 49 S. E. 211; Rothschild v. Daugher, 85 Tex. 332, 16 L. R. A. 719, 34 Am. St. Rep. 811, 20 S. W. 142; Bow-den v. Parrish, 86 Va. 67, 19 Am. St. Rep. 873, 9 S. E. 616; Hunton v. Wood, 101 Va. 54, 43 S. E. 186. Contra, Weidman v. Templeton, (Tenn. Ch. App.) 61 S. W. 102.
10. Wasson v. Connor, 54 Miss. 351; Long v. Crews, 113 N. Car. 256, 18 S. E. 499; Baxter v. Howell, 7 Tex. Civ. App. 198, 26 S. W. 453.
11. That he can do so, see Greve v. Echo Oil Co., 8 Cal. App. 275,key-office-2010.co.uk/office-2007-key:key-office-2010.co.uk/office-2007-key]Cheap office Enterprise 2007, 96 Pac. 904. Contra, People v. Railroad Comm'rs, 105 N. Y. App. Div. 273, 93 N. Y. Supp. 584 (certificate of incorporation).
12. Hayes v. Southern Home Bldg, etc., Ass'n, 124 Ala. 663, 82 Am. St. Rep. 216, 26 So. 527; Ogden Bld'g, etc., Ass'n v. Mensch, 196 111. 554, 63 N. E. 1049; Steger v. Travelling Men's Bldg etc., Ass'n, 208 111. 236, 100 Am. St. Rep. 225, 70 N. E. 236; Kothe v. Krag Reynolds, 20 Ind. App. 293, 50 N. E. 594; Smith v. Clark, 100 Iowa, 605, 69 N. W. 1011; Wilson v. Griess, 64 Neb. 792, 90 N. W. 866; Bexar Bldg. etc., Ass'n v. Heady, 21 Tex. Civ. App. 154, 50 S. W. 1079, 57 S. W. 583; Boswell v. Laramie First Nat. Bank, 16 Wyo. 161, 92 Pac. 624.
|
Hybrid Mode
